contemplating the intersection of work, the global economy, and Christian mission

Sep 05, 2007

A Community Called Atonement - Book Review

A professor I had years ago showed how you can parse the word “atonement” to get at its meaning: At-one-ment. When humanity parted from God we became separated from God, from our neighbor, from nature, and even from ourselves. To use a Hebrew concept, shalom was lost. Atonement is the means by which God restores shalom and reintegrates all things in himself.

Lately within Evangelical environs there has been an intensifying battle over different models of atonement. Which model is the right one? Which is the controlling idea or metaphor? A number of academics in Mainline denominations dismiss the idea of atonement altogether, claiming it evolved after Christ and was not part of his self-understanding. The comment by Presbyterian Church (USA) theologian Delores Williams captured the spirit with her statement fourteen years ago, “I don't think we need a theory of atonement at all; I don't think we need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff.” (Why Did Jesus Die?)

Scot McKnight has just published a book called A Community Called Atonement. McKnight is a first rate biblical scholar at North Park University and the man behind the curtain at the always engaging Jesus Creed blog. Using his exceptional writing skills, McKnight takes what can be a very tedious idea and brings it alive.

McKnight does a wonderful job of rescuing the debate from a narrow abstract battle to make this or that model prevail and relocates the discussion in the larger picture of God’s mission in the world. Atonement is not an end in itself. Atonement is a means toward accomplishing a mission; the mission of restoring of that which has been lost. McKnight locates the central themes of this restoration in the concepts of justice (mishpat), righteousness (tesedeq) and shalom. (128)

After exploring the many models and metaphors of atonement, McKnight writes, “I suggest that we think of atonement as identification for incorporation.” (107) “His (Jesus’) act of atonement has a dual focus in light of the enormity of the problem with cracked Eikons: identification in order to remove sins and victory in order to liberate those who are incorporate into him so they can form the new community where God’s will is realized.” (107-108)

But one of the most important emphases McKnight makes is the missional aspect of atonement. To put it in my own words, we have not simply been saved from something, namely sin. We have been saved to someone who incorporates us into community and sends out in mission to the world. Our mission is to be living testimony of the at-one-ment that is to come and invite others into that at-one-ment. That is my shorthand. He says it much better. I think the book is a very helpful contribution not only to the atonement debate but also to missiology.

If you have not read a lot about atonement issues I suspect the book could be a little dense in places. That is not a critique of the author but rather an acknowledgement of the complexity of the topic. McKnight, as usual, does a great job of breaking it down for those of us don’t breathe the rarified air of the theological academy. If you are looking for detailed description of each atonement model and a point-by-point analysis, then this is not the right book. If you want a sound biblical reflection on what atonement means for your life and the life of the Church, I highly recommend this book.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Mike,

Sounds like a good book on a topic that is creating division not only in evangelical circles but mainline ones as well. I am, however, concerned when you say this: "A number of academics in Mainline denominations dismiss the idea of atonement altogether, claiming it evolved after Christ and was not part of his self-understanding." How many is "a number"? Which academics (besides Williams whose statement about the atonement was made at a conference (Re-Imagining) that has become a flashpoint for conservatives in the PCUSA and therefore I do not believe it "captures a spirit") are making these statements and in what context? Are Presbyterian academics on the whole abandoning the doctrine of atonement? One could imply that from your statement. For me, the fight is not unlike that being had in evangelical circles--not is there atonement in Jesus, but how do we understand it and describe it. The Confession of 1967 is helpful at this point (9.09): "God’s reconciling act in Jesus Christ is a mystery which the scriptures describe in various ways. It is called the sacrifice of a lamb, a shepherd’s life given for his sheep, atonement by a priest; again it is ransom of a slave, payment of debt, vicarious satisfaction of a legal penalty, and victory over the powers of evil. These are expressions of a truth which remains beyond the reach of all theory in the depths of God’s love for man. They reveal the gravity, cost, and sure achievement of God’s reconciling work." In my experience at the Presbytery level, the fight over atonement isn't whether we believe in it at all, but how we believe in it; although it is also my experience that when one does not embrace "substitutionary atonement" as the way to understand atonement, then one is dismissed as not believing in atonement at all. Is it possible that that is what Delores Williams was saying 14 years ago? That "that atonement"--one that posits that God requires a violent sacrifice in order to save us from our sin is not a helpful metaphor for our time? Thanks again for wide range of posts and your willingness to push in many directions.

This conversation does get tricky. Some have tried to reduce the atonement down to substitution, or penal substitution, only. Others recoil at that and say there are other images/metaphors that better capture what has happened. They reject substitution in favor of a better metaphor. McKnight rejects the reductionistic tendency of many and the denial of substitution by others. He sees substitution as one of the key metaphors that informs our understanding of atonement.

Toward the end of the book McKnight writes briefly about the contribution of differing models/metaphors for atonement (recapitulation, ransom/victor, satisfaction, substitution, representation, penal substitution) and their contribution to a complete understanding, all the time rejecting that any one metaphor can holistically capture the larger reality. He writes about the unmistakable prefiguring of Christ’s work in the pure sacrificial lambs in the ritual sacrifices of the Jews that substitute for sinful people. He also writes:

So I conclude that the Bible does teach penal substitution: Jesus identified with us so far “all the way down” that he died out death, so that we, being incorporated into him, might partake in his glorious, life-giving resurrection to a new life. He died instead of us (substitution); he died a death that was the consequence of sin (penal). But, here again, this is not enough; it is just not enough to express atonement through the category of penal substitution.

If we limit atonement to this category, we have an atonement that is nothing more than a important theodicy: it explains how God can eliminate sin justly, but it only explains the wrath-to-death problem, and that is not all there is to atonement. (113)

He also writes:

When a theory of atonement contends that the cross is not central to the plan of the atoning God, that theory dissolves the only story the church has ever known. (61)

“Violent sacrifice” may not be the best starting place for a conversation in our age but it is an indispensable metaphor for a full orbed appreciation of the full reality of what God has done and is doing in the world. We are zeroed in here on substitution and I have just quoted McKnight on a couple of passages about substitution. That does a great injustice to his book because his whole point is to affirm all the biblical metaphors without reducing it to any one. In short, I think he would say that we have lost the biblical understanding of atonement if we deny the metaphor of substitution, but we also lose it if we try to reduce atonement to substitution. That is my take as well.

Thanks for your take on McKnight's new book. I have to admit that he lost me when, in my opinion, he misrepresented the reformed faith or "Calvinism" as he preferred to minimize it. I'll try to approach this new work with an open mind.

Another book I'd suggest that has a great potential to energize the church at large is David Bryant's work on Christology called "CHRIST IS ALL". It's excellent in that it is an easily accessible work on Christology for nontechnical readers that synthesizes the spectrum of biblical teaching in what I'd call a doxological format that genuinely evokes prayer and praise... that's saying something for a "theology" book! Likewise, it helps the reader "take the message to the street". It represents the pinnacle of his work and I pray it will have a broad impact on the church.